Except every scientific study shows that when calories are in a surplus you gain and when in a deficit you lose. I posted why diets work. Restrict options almost always means reduced calories. If not, then no fat loss happens. You cannot refute any of it. You CAN remain in denial and post nonsense, however. It makes me sad, honestly.

Brother, you have made me weep for humanity several times in this thread. I've been on boards before where that has been the case but you and your erstwhile friend are standouts in that particular group.

I just posted a study that showed that the gains and losses were not uniform. How is that possible? How could the gains and losses be more uniform within the twin pairs? Remember you posted that 'you are not different' link? This study says we are different.

And, no, you assert restricting options results in reduced calories but it is simply a baseless assertion like most of the mainstream bull. I saw that lame assertion in the article you linked too. If I recall correctly that is a very, very old assertion made up out of whole cloth.

Also, *you* are the only one that has stated that someone can lose weight without a calorie deficit. Or that someone won't gain weight with a calorie surplus.

Except every scientific study shows that when calories are in a surplus you gain and when in a deficit you lose.

Seriously. This tells me you have never read a single nutritional study, and you have no idea about the state of scientific research. If you did, you couldn't possibly say this.

Quote:

I posted why diets work. Restrict options almost always means reduced calories. If not, then no fat loss happens. You cannot refute any of it. You CAN remain in denial and post nonsense, however. It makes me sad, honestly.

No, actually what you posted was your opinion about how you think they ought to work, based on research you either didn't understand or made up. Real life is much more complex than sound bites, as real scientific research shows.

Looks like Red and Katherine are the experts of the internet. I will disregard Aragon, the god of nutrition, and peer reviewed scientific studies because of a couple of randoms on a small site think differently. *snicker*

Here is an interesting post from a medical doctor on this topic. He reinterates the point that different foods affect your body differently on a hormonal level. It's not a matter of thermodynamics because the human body is not a closed system. Certain foods, like carbohydrates, trigger insulin which cause your body to store fat rather than use it for energy. In this post a person ate nearly 6k extra calories a day, all low carb, and didn't gain any significant amount weight. Here is the post..

"What happens if you “overeat” on an LCHF diet? It’s a common question and here’s one possible answer.

The young man Sam Feltham has done a three-week experiment, where he’s been eating enormous amounts of LCHF-food. On average 5794 calories daily of which “only” 10% as carbohydrates (menu).

According to over-simplified calorie counting, energy expenditure isn’t affected by what you eat. All excess calories you eat will then lead to weight gain. If this were true Feltham would have gained 16.5 lbs (7.5 kg) during the three weeks, but in reality he only gained 3.5 lbs (1.7 kg)."

"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

I spent last week increasing my intake of low glycemic carbs. The increase was very slight (on purpose) so I was still very much in caloric deficit. Yet my weight loss, which had been measurably steady, STALLED.

Good article. The summary is my favorite part; it aligns 100% with my own experience after years of doing this:

Quote:

When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood. [true, but all carbs = glucose so "bad"/"good" carbs is questionable]

It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, [true!] as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest. [true!]

Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight

Those final bold words are THE KEY to it all as that appetite suppression occurs only via ketosis, just like the good Dr. A. always said.

I spent last week increasing my intake of low glycemic carbs. The increase was very slight (on purpose) so I was still very much in caloric deficit. Yet my weight loss, which had been measurably steady, STALLED.

Consider yourself refuted.

Thanks for doing a one WEEK(lol) study on yourself while proving nothing but the fact that raising carbs raises water weight(glycogen in skeletal muscle). You refuted science with a one week experiment. Please read that last sentence and try not to laugh. If you don't get it let me explain. Water fluctuations in people can be immense. After my 3 days of surplus I gained 10lbs. To gain 10lbs. of fat I would of had to eat 35,000 calories above maintenance. You raised carbs which raises water retention but affects fat loss/gain 0%. One week is not enough time AT ALL to perform a weight loss/gain experiment.

"Low-Carb Diets Make People Lose More Water Weight

There are several controlled studies that have found people eating low-carb diets lost more weight than those on high-carb diets.126-129 Unfortunately, these studies have other problems.

While the people on low-carb diets lost more weight, they didn’t lose more fat — they lost water weight.128,130

When you eat carbs, they’re largely converted into muscle glycogen — the storage form of carbohydrate. Every gram of glycogen is bound to about 3-4 grams of water.131,132

When you switch to a low-carb diet, your glycogen levels drop, and you lose water weight.133-136 Low-carb diets also tend to deplete electrolyte levels which can also have a diuretic (water depleting) effect.

Several of the studies that found low-carb diets helped people lose more weight only measured total body weight. They didn’t measure body composition, so there’s no way to know whether they lost fat, water, or muscle.

Other studies have measured or controlled for changes in water weight and have found no difference in fat loss.

Granted, it’s fun to see big changes in scale weight when you slash carbs, but those aren’t necessarily big changes in fat loss."

What a pile of crap. Yes, metabolism is complex and varies wildly from person to person, and from age to age in the same person.

But, implicit in this post is that fat people "can't help it", encouraging the typical "I eat only 500 calories a day and I STILL gain weight" garbage.

Bottom line. Inescapable reality. There were no fat people in concentration camps. The human body cannot maintain weight with a prolonged caloric deficit. It's impossible.

So.

If you are fat (I am), the inescapable reality is that you need to burn more calories than you consume. And if for YOU it requires a deficit of more than 3,500 calories to lose a pound, deal with it.

I love how we enable and in fact encourage failure.

This site is great in the sense that it provides every one of us with the tools we need to succeed.

Monitor EXACTLY what you eat. If you think you've created a 3,500 calorie deficit, but haven't lost weight - start measuring your food intake with precision. Chances are your "table spoon" of butter is more like two or three. I know I made this mistake. Once my measurement became more accurate, I started to see weight loss.

If that isn't doing it, accept that YOUR weight loss requires maybe 4,000 calories. And work on that premise. Or, maybe your BMR is lower than this site suggests (I know mine is) and adjust your expecations.

But for EVERY ONE OF US there is a formula that, ultimately, will result in weight loss.

And, essentially, it is a function of "Eat Less, Move More". That simple. The only variable is "how much less, and how much more".

Everyone starting a diet loses water weight. It's a result of eating less food and less salty food.

Low carb diets tend to cause a person to release more salt. So they may drop a few pounds more water weight the first few days.

But after that, it's body weight that people are losing. The idea that a low carb dieter loses mostly water throughout the duration of their diet is nonsense. A low carb dieter and a conventional dieter who each loses 100 pounds have still both lost one heck of a lot of weight and should be congratulated for their accomplishments.

But, implicit in this post is that fat people "can't help it", encouraging the typical "I eat only 500 calories a day and I STILL gain weight" garbage.

No need for reading between the lines. If I wasn't clear before I'll state it clearly now:

A lot, a vast number, of fat people are fat because they cannot help it - on the mainstream plan eating carbs as a substantial portion of their calories.

Are there people that are overweight because they are lazy and/or gluttonous? Absolutely.

Are *all* or even a substantial majority of people overweight because they are lazy/gluttonous or cannot understand 'eat less'? No. No. No. No. No. No. And no. A lot of them are fat because of what they are eating - carbs. Not because they haven't tried to eat less and move more. Not because they cannot understand the bumper sticker logic of ELMM. Not because they are fat pig slobs.

Acknowledging that there is more to being fat than stupidity or laziness does *not* enable fat people to stay fat or give them an excuse to stay fat. It empowers them. I was empowered when I learned about how carbohydrates affect my metabolism. I was empowered when I recognized my own experience with wheat, the two hour roller coaster, that Dr. Davis described in Wheat Belly. I was empowered when I read Why We Get Fat and understood the house of cards that the mainstream dogma is built on.

Really consider the logic of your position. You are saying, like the rest of the diablo camp, that *all* fat people are fat *because* they are lazy and too stupid to 'eat less move more'.

Do you believe that? You really believe that pure laziness and stupidity can explain the worldwide obesity epidemic?

That is some kinda chutzpah right there.

Please say it out loud to yourself. Take the gloves off and don't hide behind euphemisms. "All fat people are fat because they are stupid and lazy". Emphasize the word *all*. Does verbalizing your argument bring it home how impossible it is?

I'm happy to give a case study - myself. Agree or disagree with me, love me or hate me, do I strike you as so unintelligent that I cannot understand what diablo and the rest of the mainstream zombies around here *insist* must work? 'Eat less move more'. No? So, according to you the only other reason I got so fat was pure laziness. Let me ask all of you fat people in the audience, do you consider yourself lazy? You think of yourself as a lazy fat slob? You *know* you are not. *I* know you are not.

I didn't march to fatdom willingly. I tried the mainstream way a zillion times. But quitting wheat and going LC 'magically' broke the chains of obesity. Why is that? After trying and failing to do it *their* way God knows how many times, LC allowed me to lose 80 pounds in 20 months. What changed?

What is the response from them????? Oh, you only did it because of a calorie deficit. Okay, lets agree to that - I lost weight with a calorie deficit.

Now, why was that possible with LC where it was impossible without LC? Why was I stupid as a cow and lazy as a pig before LC and suddenly a brilliant 'eat less' progeny when I cut the carbs?

Bottom line. Inescapable reality. There were no fat people in concentration camps. The human body cannot maintain weight with a prolonged caloric deficit. It's impossible.

The results of starvation proves that starvation is a reality. It has nothing to do with the real world. To be clear, few people can willingly starve themselves.

If you, reader, are carb sensitive then trying to eat at a big enough deficit while eating carbs to actually see results is a failing strategy. Obviously. You've tried it before. You are fat now from all the times you tried it and couldn't keep it up. No losses, a lot of misery, a lot of being so hungry you could eat your shoes. Then you have mainstreamers telling you that you failed because you are a failure as a person. That is a real upbeat message, no? I do not think it is particularly empowering either. Screw 'tough love'. There is just the bleak reality that that approach doesn't work for you and it isn't because you didn't work that approach. Just because something works for someone else doesn't mean it will work for you. I don't think LC is for everyone. I don't have to think that. I am not required to live a zombie-like existence where all other approaches must be wrong for mine to be right. If you love carbs, like Diablo, and ELMM WB is workable for you then kick butt! Being not-fat is a wonderful experience. I celebrate your success with you!

If you are fat (I am), the inescapable reality is that you need to burn more calories than you consume. And if for YOU it requires a deficit of more than 3,500 calories to lose a pound, deal with it.

Yes. Deal with it. Become more self-aware. If the eat less move more thing is a huge failure for you recognize that despite your best efforts it doesn't work for you and there might be more to it than your simply being a lawn mower engine with a character defect.

...there might be more to it than your simply being a lawn mower engine with a character defect.

LOL. I am not a bomb calorimeter. Perhaps I should make t-shirts that say that.

Coincidentally this week I have started on a personal n=1 CICO experiment. Over a period of time I will determine my true RDI, vary my intake of carbs vs fat from high carb, equal carbs:fat, to low carb, while keeping my protein constant; and repeat this while restricting calories. Not necessarily in that order. Each phase to last for 2 weeks.

I may then, if still I have weight to lose, try out a few dietary changes that might have an effect.

Anyone can do this who can record data.

Record everything. Protein must stay constant throughout the experiment (though you can make that a variable in a later phase of your own design). Plan every day's menu in advance to make sure your macros stay on target.

If you find that a 3500 calorie deficit causes you to lose weight, and you are unaffected by varying macros, then you are a person for whom this has no effect. If you do find a difference, then you are a person for whom this makes a difference.

Don't forget to measure your waist and body fat throughout! We want to see those body composition changes.

And keep your exercise consistent.

It should take about 3 months of your life to run the experiment. You may post your data as you collect it on a blog somewhere, or you may come back after it is done so we can compare.

I agree completely. We enable it by insisting that there is a one size fits all weight loss can't fail formula. We encourage it by making people that have tried hard to lose weight the mainstream way and failed countless times that *they* are the failure because the mainstream *cannot* possibly be the failure in the equation. How better to encourage people to throw in the towel on ever becoming skinny that to tell them they failed because it is self-evident that they are too lazy to succeed and too unintelligent to eat less.

Roblaw2b wrote:

But for EVERY ONE OF US there is a formula that, ultimately, will result in weight loss.

Unless it is a low carb formula in which case the low carber is a hapless rube victimized by sharps that have sold them a bill of goods. Even if they lost weight and kept it off on LC.

Roblaw2b wrote:

And, essentially, it is a function of "Eat Less, Move More". That simple. The only variable is "how much less, and how much more".

So very simple indeed. So simple it makes you wonder how there could possibly be a worldwide obesity epidemic.

Thanks, jlbenitz - Since I restarted Monday I have been expanding my eating and not just limiting it to the MIMs. It was a good way for me to start though. They fill me up and I don't want the other ...